open source software

windows (commercial software)

a business approach to software

source code owned by a corporation

funded by selling software

linux (free software)

hacker culture of software

code is free to modify and reuse

funded by additional services

commercial interests

not selling software but providing services

for-profit interest are sometimes no longer opposed to free software

a new generation of open-source software

open source without the “restrictive” licenses

corporate-friendly open source

open source software

it’s much more than a free vs commercial license

* a lot of software is not a final end-user product
* search for sustainable open-source funding
* who is in control of open-source software?
* contributing and accepting contributions

sustainable open-source funding

crucial safe internet infrastructure receives donations of $2000 per month to pay one developer

welcoming community

* becoming a contributor is hard without guidance
* attracting contributors takes a lot of effort and energy

code of conduct

a clear set of rules to be followed

process for resolving and reporting issues that arise

free software model (philosophy and ideals)

built by hackers for hackers

pay not with money, but with code

open decisions (rare)

free software model (licenses and tools)

GPL license requires publishing changes

LGPL allows linking in proprietary software

distributed version control (git)

dual licensing model (philosophy and ideals)

free for hackers, paid otherwise

pay with either money or a code

commercial, but open ownership

dual licensing model (licenses and tools)

AGPL closes service provider loophole

using a database forces you to share your code

commercial license if you don’t want to

consulting model (philosophy and ideals)

share code and allow all uses

find an alternative funding source

commercial services, training

consulting model (licenses and tools)

MIT, BSD, Apache

allow unrestricted use without requirements

corporate open-source model (philosophy and ideals)

developer tools should be open

even those from companies

supports other profitable business

project ownership remains corporate

corporate open-source model (licenses and tools)

MIT, BSD, Apache

share code on GitHub for community reasons

community open-source model

alternative for community projects

donations

like a corporate model without corporations

is this sustainable?

what open-source projects need to live

maintainer: 1 hour a day, week, or month

* someone to merge changes, build releases, explain issues

core developers: irregular, but more time

* implements major new features in the software

contributors: a couple of hours or days

* improvements, bug fixes, better documentation

even small things matter

minor bug fixes and typos

documentation improvements

good bug reports

how to maintain/contribute to OS software well

follow the style and contributing guidelines

report issues with a minimal example

small to large builds try and communicate well

good contributing

read the guidelines

follow guidelines

follow coding style

explain things well

reporting issues

minimal

* as little code and data as possible

complete

* provide all relevant parts of the code

verifiable

* describe and test the behaviour